[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']I need to warn upfront that this article might be a bit harsh in some people's minds, and therefore I won't react to any critique concerning my opinions. Bear in mind that I am using Nikon also. Logics and reasoning, erroneous facts and grammatical errors are naturally something that I'd love to get pointed out.[/span]

After the last PMA2007, my fears about Nikon are only growing stronger and I thought to write down what I thought about Nikon.

"I'm a Nikonian. I currently photograph with a Nikon D200 and a handful of Nikkor lenses and no third party lenses. My first Nikon camera was the popular D70. The only reason I bought a Nikon instead of a Canon was that it incorporated true spot metering in-camera. Although the reasoning behind buying Nikon wasn't too strong at the time, once I began photographing with the body, I was very thankful that I chose Nikon over Canon. The D70 was like made from a mold of my hand - the ergonomics were perfect, and the construction and materials (considering it was mainly plastic) were superlative. I was convinced that Nikon was a company that understood the true needs of a photographer, and was less inclined to look pretty on paper. I was a proud Nikon owner, and quietly felt pity for those who bought Canons in their ignorance. I was a true Nikonian. I was a proud Nikonian.

Recently, I've been wondering about some choices Nikon has made. At first, I thought it was just odd marketing, but now, as those trends persist, I can't help but wonder."

Yes that's actually a good point that I somehow failed to think about. But I'd like to try to counter that on-the-run: The ratio between megapixels and sensor area seems not to vary all too much to make a significant difference.

Example: Canon 5D is full frame and 13.3mpix. That divided by 1.5, the crop factor of Nikon bodies, sums up to 8.9mpix, which isn't all too far away from either 6mpix and 10mpix. Canon 1D Mark III is 1.3 crop factor at 10.7mpix - that converted to a 1.5 crop sensor is 9.2mpix, again not too different from 10mpix. Sure, lower, but I'm not sure how much difference that makes in practice.

As a side note, I previously compared Nikon's D80 (10mpix) and D70 (6mpix) noise attributes, and came to the (subjective) conclusion, that the relative noise profiles on a denser (and newer-generation) sensor aren't necessarily noisier - when compared at same image dimensions, noise profiles aren't that distinct.

Edit: Oh, and yes, that dynamic range most probably holds true - sensors from the same generation but with different cell sizes, most probably the one with bigger pixels produces a better dynamic range.

Example: Canon 5D is full frame and 13.3mpix. That divided by 1.5, the crop factor of Nikon bodies, sums up to 8.9mpix, which isn't all too far away from either 6mpix and 10mpix. Canon 1D Mark III is 1.3 crop factor at 10.7mpix - that converted to a 1.5 crop sensor is 9.2mpix, again not too different from 10mpix. Sure, lower, but I'm not sure how much difference that makes in practice.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Worrying about pixel count is missing a major point of having a larger sensor.Sensor size directly affects image appearence. This is why films made with 35mm look so different to those made on HD cameras. See page link for some movies showing the difference and it's a big differeence.[a href=\"http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technology/pvr/7749.html]http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technology/pvr/7749.html[/url]

I have a crop sensor and a FF camera. I've never used the crop sensor since acquiring the FF and it's nothing to do with the quality. And then there's the lack of fast wideangles for crop sensor cameras. So for those reasons, the crop factor of Nikons that you champion in your article , is precisely, why I would never buy them, as I cannot take many of my images with those limitations. I like wideangles and shallow depth of field, so Nikon's are of no use to me.Oh and Nikons have poorer noise performance at high ISOs compared to Canon too. Bigger sensors help there as well.

The point I was trying to make in my article was for Nikon to market their DX-format as a format on its own, just as 35mm is a distinct format from, say, 645 medium format. Sure, there's differences in image attributes (primarily depth of field), but that's what you get. I wish Nikon to keep DX as a marketing point, and educate people that it's not as simple as "better" and "worse".

Would bigger always be better, why aren't we all photographing with medium format digital, or even scan back large format?

And yes, Nikon has lesser noise performance compared to Canon, but that's hardly any news to anybody?

And yes, Nikon has lesser noise performance compared to Canon, but that's hardly any news to anybody?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, an objective comparison of the latest offerings of Nikon and Canon in the consumer area (D40, D80, 400D, 30D...) shows that the gap between Nikon and Canon in terms of high iso noise is now very slim.

It is becoming more a matter of what type of noise you like/dislike.

The 5D/1DIII are currently best in class, but I do personnally expect the next generation high end Nikons to be in the same ball park at the 5D and 1dIII.

Then again, noise at high iso is just one variable among many others than enable successful images to be taken. Even today, the low light AF capability of Nikon bodies appears to be overall higher and I personnally prefer a sharp image with a bit more noise rather than a blurred one because the AF couldn't converge.

The truth is, most of us could optimze the use of our current gear in many different ways, and get much better results. The key is to look at our images in an objective way, identify where they lack most, and focus on improving that. I know that for me, the lack of performance of my cameras is far down the list.

The point I was trying to make in my article was for Nikon to market their DX-format as a format on its own, just as 35mm is a distinct format from, say, 645 medium format.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's problematic. The difference in format size between Nikon sensors and FF 35mm sensors is too small to warrant a distinct format with its own set of lenses and a compatibility break with older FF Nikkor lenses.

The Olympus 4/3rds format, less than 1/4 the area of FF 35mm, is a reasonable size difference.

My little contribution to this thread must be that Nikon shot itself in both feet a long time ago when it failed to keep up with Canon and introduce a RANGE of T/S lenses. I know more than one pro who has chosen Canon over Nikon for that reason and also because the failure to market FF would have made the use of such T/S lenses, had they existed, hardly worth the bother.

Having said that, I'm still using Nikon, but mainly because I still have a film body too as well as some primes and have little intention of investing in two small-format systems at the same time.

It probably didn't have to be so for Nikon, but I wonder if they didn't fall to their own hubris...

Worrying about pixel count is missing a major point of having a larger sensor.Sensor size directly affects image appearence. This is why films made with 35mm look so different to those made on HD cameras. See page link for some movies showing the difference and it's a big differeence.

I have a crop sensor and a FF camera. I've never used the crop sensor since acquiring the FF and it's nothing to do with the quality. And then there's the lack of fast wideangles for crop sensor cameras. So for those reasons, the crop factor of Nikons that you champion in your article , is precisely, why I would never buy them, as I cannot take many of my images with those limitations. I like wideangles and shallow depth of field, so Nikon's are of no use to me.Oh and Nikons have poorer noise performance at high ISOs compared to Canon too. Bigger sensors help there as well.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

jjj,

Your comparisons make some sense but are one sided and misleading.

I'm not so sure that your analogy with movie cameras is appropriate, since the ratios of the crop factors may be different. The Nikon crop factor (as compared to full frame 35 mm) is 1.5:1. What is it for the movie cameras you are comparing? I suspect the difference in depth of field is not so marked between the two still camera formats. Also, one can decrease the depth of field by opening up the lens with the cropped sensor. You decry the lack of fast wide angle lenses for the cropped sensor, but current Canon full frame sensor/lens combinations give suboptimal sharpness towards the edges of the image. There is a trade off here that you do not mention.

You seem to prefer a shallow depth of field, but in many situations increased depth of field is a desirable attribute rather than a liability, for example in landscape photography. You also ignore this fact.

The 1.5 crop factor can be an advantage for telephoto work. Large aperture telephoto lenses are quite expensive and bulky. With the cropped sensor one can save on cost and bulk, and this may compensate for the issues with wide angle; again, you do not mention this.

The larger pixel size of full frame does give a higher signal to noise ratio, especially at high ISO, but at base ISOs noise is not a problem with the Nikon even at large picture sizes. Dynamic range correlates only loosely with pixel size at base ISO, but becomes more of an issue at high ISO (see [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/]Roger Clark's[/url] figures 4 and 5 in the link.

While I agree that Nikon has to come with a full frame sensor for those who need it, the cropped sensor works quite well for many applications and is cost effective for many of us. Thus far, full frame is a niche even for Canon.

Bill - it's a little dishonest to advocate crop factors on under FF bodies as being an advantage with longer focal lengths: these are tricks of cropping what's available from a primary image circle and are simply mechanical results of that. They do not create longer focal lengths - these remain the same - only a reduced part of what the lens is rendering possible can be used and unlike comparing focal lengths on the SAME format there is no sensible comparison that can be made using smaller than FF formats with FF. The only logical way to look at formats is as totally independent entities; to mix them up together and try formulating comparisons is meaningless and can only lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

When using 35mm film bodies and also 6x6 and 6x7 one seldom found need to compare them in the way that digital formats get compared. Each was understood from experience and its best features used because they existed. This was probably because such working came from long-established practice; with the newness (comparatively) of digital such confidence is lacking. But it will come.

When using 35mm film bodies and also 6x6 and 6x7 one seldom found need to compare them in the way that digital formats get compared. Each was understood from experience and its best features used because they existed. This was probably because such working came from long-established practice; with the newness (comparatively) of digital such confidence is lacking. But it will come.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob,The reason for this is that effectively, with digital cameras, we have a situation where larger format film cameras can't take fine grained film. If this had been the situation in the old days of film, there would have been much more concern and scrutiny comparing fast but coarse grained film on 6x4.5cm format, for example, with fine grained film on 35mm format.

People like BJL would be making the point (and a valid point too) that the speed advantage of the lower resolution, high speed film is at least partially offset by the need to use bigger f stops with the larger format to get equivalent DoF, and the resolution advantage of the slower, fine-grained film in smaller formats is partially offset by the bigger size of the larger format which can accommodate a greater number of grains in total even though the individual grains are bigger.

As digital sensor technology progresses to the point where pixel density can be more or less equal whatever the format, then comparisons will be as clear cut as they were in those ancients days of film.

"My little contribution to this thread must be that Nikon shot itself in both feet a long time ago when it failed to keep up with Canon and introduce a RANGE of T/S lenses. I know more than one pro who has chosen Canon over Nikon for that reason........"

If you add to that superior long exposure noise reduction, you describe why virtually every professional architectural photographer I know (which because of my teaching and lecturing all over the country is quite a few) when buying a DSLR buy Canon.

Bill - it's a little dishonest to advocate crop factors on under FF bodies as being an advantage with longer focal lengths: these are tricks of cropping what's available from a primary image circle and are simply mechanical results of that. They do not create longer focal lengths - these remain the same - only a reduced part of what the lens is rendering possible can be used and unlike comparing focal lengths on the SAME format there is no sensible comparison that can be made using smaller than FF formats with FF. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think there is anything dishonest about my post, but your reply is confused. Of course you can always crop the image with a full frame camera to get the same field of view that you would get with the smaller sensor, but the results could be disappointing since the full frame sensor may not have sufficient pixel density to capture the detail. For a concrete example, the Canon 5D has a Nyquist frequency of 61 lp/mm, whereas the Nikon D2x gives 91 lp/mm. If you have a 300 mm lenses of equal quality, you will get better results from the D2X than a cropped area of the 5D. If you used a 500 mm lens on the Canon and utilized the full frame, the results might be different.

With film cameras, the sensor (film) was similar in all cameras, but this is not the case with digital. Of course, 35 mm photographers did not have the luxury of using non-fine grain film, but users of larger formats could use fine grain film also and get improved results. It all depends on whether the system is limited by the sensor or the lens.

"My little contribution to this thread must be that Nikon shot itself in both feet a long time ago when it failed to keep up with Canon and introduce a RANGE of T/S lenses. I know more than one pro who has chosen Canon over Nikon for that reason........"

If you add to that superior long exposure noise reduction, you describe why virtually every professional architectural photographer I know (which because of my teaching and lecturing all over the country is quite a few) when buying a DSLR buy Canon.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd love the topic to remain on the topics described in the article, and not in tooting one's own horn or trying to figure out which camera is the best.

If you add to that superior long exposure noise reduction, you describe why virtually every professional architectural photographer I know (which because of my teaching and lecturing all over the country is quite a few) when buying a DSLR buy Canon.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am with you on the lack of T/S lenses, but have personnally never found the D2x to be lacking in terms of long exposures. I have made 3 minutes exposures using very dense ND filters that are perfectly clean.

I don't think there is anything dishonest about my post, but your reply is confused. Of course you can always crop the image with a full frame camera to get the same field of view that you would get with the smaller sensor, but the results could be disappointing since the full frame sensor may not have sufficient pixel density to capture the detail. For a concrete example, the Canon 5D has a Nyquist frequency of 61 lp/mm, whereas the Nikon D2x gives 91 lp/mm. If you have a 300 mm lenses of equal quality, you will get better results from the D2X than a cropped area of the 5D. If you used a 500 mm lens on the Canon and utilized the full frame, the results might be different.

With film cameras, the sensor (film) was similar in all cameras, but this is not the case with digital. Of course, 35 mm photographers did not have the luxury of using non-fine grain film, but users of larger formats could use fine grain film also and get improved results. It all depends on whether the system is limited by the sensor or the lens.

Well, Bill, I didn't particularly find a great deal to say about them in reply; the only bit which interested me was that oft touted notion about longer lenses on cropped sensor sizes - that's all there was to it, really; to compound the point further would be little more than repetition of so many other similar posts and I respect the reader's time...

Rob,The reason for this is that effectively, with digital cameras, we have a situation where larger format film cameras can't take fine grained film. If this had been the situation in the old days of film, there would have been much more concern and scrutiny comparing fast but coarse grained film on 6x4.5cm format, for example, with fine grained film on 35mm format.

People like BJL would be making the point (and a valid point too) that the speed advantage of the lower resolution, high speed film is at least partially offset by the need to use bigger f stops with the larger format to get equivalent DoF, and the resolution advantage of the slower, fine-grained film in smaller formats is partially offset by the bigger size of the larger format which can accommodate a greater number of grains in total even though the individual grains are bigger.

As digital sensor technology progresses to the point where pixel density can be more or less equal whatever the format, then comparisons will be as clear cut as they were in those ancients days of film.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray

I think you have made quite valid observations there - the only thing I'll say in my own defence is that when saying that one got used to the different film formats and knew what they offered, I was, naturally, speaking from a totally subjective point of view. For example, I used my Hass system for one b/w film only: TXP120; the colour stuff was Ektachrome. On 35mm I almost always used Ilford's FP3 and later FP4; colour was exclusively Kodachrome for people and Velvia for the other subjects (few) that came my way.

This was because I always used D76 1+1 for b/w; as a busy photographer always in a client-imposed rush it was great to have a single GP dev which only needed different times for different films and worked very well with them. On the colour, Ektachrome was shot on the Hass because of the same hurry need and the labs only did E6; Ektachrome, in my view, was far less good on people than Kodachrome and also, very importantly for me, Kodachrome travelled very well indeed and, as such, was great for non-studio work.

So, there it is - the cameras and formats were decided by needs and available films, illustrating too your point about sensor sizes and speed in the digital option.

I have no wish to hurt anyone's feelings and by responding to only one point in Bill's post no offence was intended.

I'd love the topic to remain on the topics described in the article, and not in tooting one's own horn or trying to figure out which camera is the best.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Henrik -

What more can one add, strictly speaking, to that which you have already put into your article on your own site? It's all your personal take on the situation, and as such, is no more or less valid than anyone else's, short of My Nikon himself speaking to us from above. (Careful, Howie..(wink, wink!))

Any thread has to spread its wings a little or it will just die, the thing ending in two posts.

Much of what has followed in this thread has been quite interesting to me and for that, I thank you for starting it off; what more you can expect, strictly on-thread, I don't know - perhaps you might write it yourself for our edification?

What more can one add, strictly speaking, to that which you have already put into your article on your own site? It's all your personal take on the situation, and as such, is no more or less valid than anyone else's, short of My Nikon himself speaking to us from above. (Careful, Howie..(wink, wink!))[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When writing this, I was very careful not to compare Nikon to anything, because I know how things are between the Nikon and Canon camps - if someone says something bad about one, there's a throng of people giving "friendly reminders" about the other.

Therefore, I would very much want this not to turn into "Nikon stinks, Canon rules" kind of discussion. Thus far, I think the discussion has been quite good and constructive (and actually more elaborate than I thought in the beginning), but when someone comes in and glorifies how he has made good in spreading the name of Canon I thought that this could lead in a Nikon-Canon flamewar, of which I'm up to here from every other camera-related forum...

So, answering your question - there's lots to add. I just wish that opinions are backed up with reasons to why one thinks like he/she does. Kirk's input seemed volatile.

Henrik, in your thought provoking article you challenged Nikon's strategy, production and specifically the logic and performance of the D40/x. You make some good points. I'm not so pessimistic so I've offered my thoughts.

D40/x

Regarding the D40/x I strongly disagree with your conclusion and I can only assume that you don't have one or have not spent any meaningful time with one. My wife sold her D50 for a D40x and on a recent 2 week vacation I had the opportunity to use it alongside a D2Xs and D200. I'd urge you to spend some time with one and look at the images it can produce. An A3 print on our Epson 3800 is virtually indistinguishable from the D200 when using the same lens (17-55mm DX 2.

You stated that the D40/x was crippled and in one of your earlier paragraphs that the D50 is more advanced. I disagree with both points. The core features are almost identical. The only 'down' grade is the number of AF sensors. Having moved from the D70 to D200 you'll appreciate why that's not always a bad thing. Is the D50 cheeper, almost certainly, older models are be heavily discounted to reduce stock levels.

Here are some of my observations:

- The buttons and switches are more robust/positive than those on the D50 making them less prone to accidental activation as they could be on the D50.

- Physically smaller, yes, but no less comfortable to hold. Like all Nikon SLR's since the F5 the ergonomics are just about perfect. It's feels very comfortable in the hand and more importantly stable. I can't disagree more strongly when you suggest that the D40 will induce poorer handling. With proper technique it doesn't.

- The brighter and larger viewfinder are significant improvements over the D50/70 viewfinder in use.

- Addition of the FUNC button is also a nice touch.

- Dynamic area AF is faster when choosing the closest subject. On the negative side I do find the need to recompose more often than on the D50 when using Single Point AF.

- The display is significantly better when checking for sharpness. This is due to increased pixel count and larger size. It also works better in bright light.

- I prefer a status LCD, It's what i've grown used to. The ststus display on the D40/x however is very functional and not something the target auidience is likely to miss. It doesn't make it any harder to capture the image.

- Support for older non motor driven Nikkors is a complete non issue for this camera. If a customer expressed an interest in using older lenses, primes or otherwise then as Nikon recommends they should be guided towards a D80.

Strategy

It's my opinion that Nikon is ill equipped to compete with the likes of Canon, Casio, Sony and Panasonic etc at the low end of the market. These products have short lifecycles, low sales prices and margins are fashion led and marketing intensive. Nikons industrial engineering led history and product design approach are not suited to these objectives/characterisitcs. Throw in increaced competition from camera phones which are slowly offering more megapixels and features and it's easy to see why Nikon may be better off leaving the digicam segments to someone else. Focusing on the more profitable DSLR market makes sense. Having a genuine entry level product makes sense.

A compact and powerful DSLR like the D40/x is just the sort of camera to appeal to digicam user wanting to 'upgrade' for a reasonable/low price. Recent lens launched also support the strategy. The excellent 18-135mm Nikkor kit lens and 70-300VR Nikkor are just the kind of lenses that will appeal to this kind of customer, and they are available! The target audience for this camera probably doesn't know what a prime lense is and most likley doesn't care preferring a more versatile zoom lens instead.

At the high end Nikon will do what it always does. Quietly develop new products which offer long life-cycles, quality, innovation and durability. Clearly there is a head of steam building behind a possible FF Nikon DSLR. Great I hope it happens, more choice is always nice. Will it be better than Canon's offering? just like today in some aspects yes and in others no. As is the case today some users will switch systems for professional and personal reasons. Core customers will upgrade as and when. The reality is these systems sell themselves.

Production

Here you have a couple of good points. In the last 5 years Nikon have announced too many important products only to end up back ordering them for months and in one or two cases, years.

Nikon's been growing DSLR market share globally despite increased competition. For this growth to be sustainable, particularly in the more consumer orientated segments they need to get a lot better at planning demand and the required production capacity.

Nikon vs. Canon

I'm not going to enter the debate about which company is ahead on the technological development curve. I'm more interested in the image than the back used to capture it. Infact the last camera bought is a Canon G7.

What I will say - as you addressed this - is like you I hope and I'm sure Nikon will continue to develop the DX format in terms of both sensors and more importantly lenses. To Nikon's credit they have been willing to produce professional grade lenses e.g 17-15mm in the DX format, I hope for more particularly with VR. Canon still don't offer an L series EF-S lens.

I'm also sure that in time a Nikon FF sensor DSLR will surface. Until then most people will continue as they always did using what they have to make the best images they can. Internet ecosystems like this one do not represent the full photographic constituency. It's my experience of busy pro shooters that they get on with shooting, whatever the equipment. Most are not glued to the www wishing for or discussing the next development from XYZ camera company.